Nobori-biolimus-eluting stents versus resolute zotarolimus-eluting stents in patients undergoing coronary intervention: A propensity score matching

Ayman Tantawy, Chul Min Ahn, Dong Ho Shin, Jung Sun Kim, Byeong Keuk Kim, Young Guk Ko, Donghoon Choi, Yangsoo Jang, Myeongki Hong

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the 1-year outcomes of a durable polymer Zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) versus a biodegradable polymer Biolimus-eluting stent (BES) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Materials and Methods: A total of 2083 patients from 2 different registries, 1125 treated with BES in NOBORI registry and 858 received ZES in CONSTANT registry were included in this study. Clinical outcomes were compared with the use of propensity score matching (PSM). The primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) including cardiac death, myocardial infarction, clinically driven target lesion revascularization and stroke. Secondary end points were individual components of MACCEs as well as the incidence of stent thrombosis at 1-year follow-up. Results: After PSM, 699 matched pairs of patients (n=1398) showed no significant difference between BES and ZES in the risk of composite MACCEs at 1 year (2.6% vs. 1.7%; p=0.36). Cardiac death was not statistically different between groups (0.7% vs. 0.4%, p=0.73). Target lesion revascularization rate was also similar between BES and ZES (1.1% vs. 0.7%, p=0.579). Non-Q wave myocardial infarction, as well as target-vessel revascularization rate, was similar between the two groups (0.14% for BES and 0.72% for ZES). Both stent types were excellent with no cases of stent thrombosis and rate of Q wave myocardial infarction reported during the follow-up period. Conclusion: In this cohort of patients treated with BES or ZES, the rate of MACCEs at 1 year was low and significantly not different between both groups.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)290-295
Number of pages6
JournalYonsei medical journal
Volume58
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2017 Mar 1

Fingerprint

Propensity Score
Stents
Registries
Myocardial Infarction
zotarolimus
Polymers
Thrombosis
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

@article{9b3a284680454d80903f9dd672601dcf,
title = "Nobori-biolimus-eluting stents versus resolute zotarolimus-eluting stents in patients undergoing coronary intervention: A propensity score matching",
abstract = "Purpose: To compare the 1-year outcomes of a durable polymer Zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) versus a biodegradable polymer Biolimus-eluting stent (BES) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Materials and Methods: A total of 2083 patients from 2 different registries, 1125 treated with BES in NOBORI registry and 858 received ZES in CONSTANT registry were included in this study. Clinical outcomes were compared with the use of propensity score matching (PSM). The primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) including cardiac death, myocardial infarction, clinically driven target lesion revascularization and stroke. Secondary end points were individual components of MACCEs as well as the incidence of stent thrombosis at 1-year follow-up. Results: After PSM, 699 matched pairs of patients (n=1398) showed no significant difference between BES and ZES in the risk of composite MACCEs at 1 year (2.6{\%} vs. 1.7{\%}; p=0.36). Cardiac death was not statistically different between groups (0.7{\%} vs. 0.4{\%}, p=0.73). Target lesion revascularization rate was also similar between BES and ZES (1.1{\%} vs. 0.7{\%}, p=0.579). Non-Q wave myocardial infarction, as well as target-vessel revascularization rate, was similar between the two groups (0.14{\%} for BES and 0.72{\%} for ZES). Both stent types were excellent with no cases of stent thrombosis and rate of Q wave myocardial infarction reported during the follow-up period. Conclusion: In this cohort of patients treated with BES or ZES, the rate of MACCEs at 1 year was low and significantly not different between both groups.",
author = "Ayman Tantawy and Ahn, {Chul Min} and Shin, {Dong Ho} and Kim, {Jung Sun} and Kim, {Byeong Keuk} and Ko, {Young Guk} and Donghoon Choi and Yangsoo Jang and Myeongki Hong",
year = "2017",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.3349/ymj.2017.58.2.290",
language = "English",
volume = "58",
pages = "290--295",
journal = "Yonsei Medical Journal",
issn = "0513-5796",
publisher = "Yonsei University College of Medicine",
number = "2",

}

Nobori-biolimus-eluting stents versus resolute zotarolimus-eluting stents in patients undergoing coronary intervention : A propensity score matching. / Tantawy, Ayman; Ahn, Chul Min; Shin, Dong Ho; Kim, Jung Sun; Kim, Byeong Keuk; Ko, Young Guk; Choi, Donghoon; Jang, Yangsoo; Hong, Myeongki.

In: Yonsei medical journal, Vol. 58, No. 2, 01.03.2017, p. 290-295.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Nobori-biolimus-eluting stents versus resolute zotarolimus-eluting stents in patients undergoing coronary intervention

T2 - A propensity score matching

AU - Tantawy, Ayman

AU - Ahn, Chul Min

AU - Shin, Dong Ho

AU - Kim, Jung Sun

AU - Kim, Byeong Keuk

AU - Ko, Young Guk

AU - Choi, Donghoon

AU - Jang, Yangsoo

AU - Hong, Myeongki

PY - 2017/3/1

Y1 - 2017/3/1

N2 - Purpose: To compare the 1-year outcomes of a durable polymer Zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) versus a biodegradable polymer Biolimus-eluting stent (BES) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Materials and Methods: A total of 2083 patients from 2 different registries, 1125 treated with BES in NOBORI registry and 858 received ZES in CONSTANT registry were included in this study. Clinical outcomes were compared with the use of propensity score matching (PSM). The primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) including cardiac death, myocardial infarction, clinically driven target lesion revascularization and stroke. Secondary end points were individual components of MACCEs as well as the incidence of stent thrombosis at 1-year follow-up. Results: After PSM, 699 matched pairs of patients (n=1398) showed no significant difference between BES and ZES in the risk of composite MACCEs at 1 year (2.6% vs. 1.7%; p=0.36). Cardiac death was not statistically different between groups (0.7% vs. 0.4%, p=0.73). Target lesion revascularization rate was also similar between BES and ZES (1.1% vs. 0.7%, p=0.579). Non-Q wave myocardial infarction, as well as target-vessel revascularization rate, was similar between the two groups (0.14% for BES and 0.72% for ZES). Both stent types were excellent with no cases of stent thrombosis and rate of Q wave myocardial infarction reported during the follow-up period. Conclusion: In this cohort of patients treated with BES or ZES, the rate of MACCEs at 1 year was low and significantly not different between both groups.

AB - Purpose: To compare the 1-year outcomes of a durable polymer Zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) versus a biodegradable polymer Biolimus-eluting stent (BES) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Materials and Methods: A total of 2083 patients from 2 different registries, 1125 treated with BES in NOBORI registry and 858 received ZES in CONSTANT registry were included in this study. Clinical outcomes were compared with the use of propensity score matching (PSM). The primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) including cardiac death, myocardial infarction, clinically driven target lesion revascularization and stroke. Secondary end points were individual components of MACCEs as well as the incidence of stent thrombosis at 1-year follow-up. Results: After PSM, 699 matched pairs of patients (n=1398) showed no significant difference between BES and ZES in the risk of composite MACCEs at 1 year (2.6% vs. 1.7%; p=0.36). Cardiac death was not statistically different between groups (0.7% vs. 0.4%, p=0.73). Target lesion revascularization rate was also similar between BES and ZES (1.1% vs. 0.7%, p=0.579). Non-Q wave myocardial infarction, as well as target-vessel revascularization rate, was similar between the two groups (0.14% for BES and 0.72% for ZES). Both stent types were excellent with no cases of stent thrombosis and rate of Q wave myocardial infarction reported during the follow-up period. Conclusion: In this cohort of patients treated with BES or ZES, the rate of MACCEs at 1 year was low and significantly not different between both groups.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85010657680&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85010657680&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3349/ymj.2017.58.2.290

DO - 10.3349/ymj.2017.58.2.290

M3 - Article

C2 - 28120558

AN - SCOPUS:85010657680

VL - 58

SP - 290

EP - 295

JO - Yonsei Medical Journal

JF - Yonsei Medical Journal

SN - 0513-5796

IS - 2

ER -